See pages 81 – 101 for the main thrust of the discussion of the proof, or 99-100 for the proof itself.

]]>By: Cyrushttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146097
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:41:36 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146097Nobody told Fraser where they were from.
]]>By: mewohttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146095
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:56:14 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146095If the Universe had existed forever, then there would be no CMB.

If the Universe had existed forever, the most distant observable galaxies would look just like the ones nearby, but they don’t.

If the Universe had existed forever, all of the star forming gas would have been exhausted infinitely long ago and there would be nothing left today. Unless you’re going to buy into the stupid idea that matter is being continuously created. But even then you have to explain why the Universe isn’t littered with lots and lots of tremendously old and cold white dwarfs and neutron stars.

Why has there never been discovered a star definitely older than 13.7 billion years, if the Universe is infinitely old?

How do you explain the fact that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

]]>By: PatrickRBhttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146089
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:45:15 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146089I wouldn’t worry about that. The way I understand it, the stretching only happens where the cosmological constant beats gravity, so unless you leave our galaxy you and your beer won’t part.
]]>By: bfmorrishttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146086
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:04:29 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146086The steady state theory does not predict the CMB.
]]>By: Tom2morohttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146081
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 05:07:46 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146081Not so, Vic. Most theories of physics hold water; it is only the scientists who are taught wrong by their “superiors.”
]]>By: pianogreghttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146079
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:57:43 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146079First of all, there is only one dimension and that is the third dimension. Two dimensions only exist as the surface of a three-dimensional object. If something has length and width but no depth, it doesn’t exist. Mathematicians say squares are two dimensional figures. The minute you draw a square you have created a three-dimensional figure. the lead from the pencil or ink from the pen are slightly raised off the surface of the paper, and therefore are three-dimensional. As for the fourth dimension and higher, they don’t exist either, except as a theory. If you could take a three-dimensional cube (Yeah, I know, that’s redundant.) and expand it infinitely in all directions it would continue past all the galaxies and continue to whatever else is out there. In other words, space is three-dimensional. There is no need for any other dimensions. One day, scientists will come to realize this.

Secondly, the Big Bang never happened. The universe has always existed. Why, in an infinite amount of space, would all matter have been concentrated in one spot? That doesn’t make sense. This also totally negates the need for a god to create anything. The sad part is, when scientists do one day prove beyond any doubt that the universe has indeed existed forever, you will still have people who will refuse to believe it and cling to their silly religious beliefs. Such is life.

]]>By: postman1https://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146077
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:45:59 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146077Only asking, but why would the creator have to be inside the universe?
]]>By: Tom2morohttps://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/#comment-146074
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:50:47 +0000http://www.universetoday.com/?p=118904#comment-146074I agree. It is defined in Astronomy as a hypothetical point in space. That doesn’t say much though. The BBT defines it as having once existed before the U. began. Some say the BBT can only go back to the time the expansion began but not before. We need to keep in mind it is an unconfirmed theory that readers agree with or disagree. It is well-defined in saying it existed, then it blew up or expanded.
The assumption it once existed presupposes it had to exist somewhere. Only if we believe it did not ever exist in fact can we say it had no location.
E=mc2 does not say mass and energy are equivalent; our teachers and textbooks say that since they do not understand it for what it truly is. The equivalence is valid only if we say the two are PROPORTIONALLY equivalent. Otherwise, why have two names for the same thing. In fact, they are worlds apart and universally distinct and unique.
The equation is patently false because it uses a false premise: That a mass at rest exists in the U., while we know no object can be at rest w/respect to the U., don we not? In ignoring the mass increase accrued from its motion (which may be unknown), the result is false. The problem is rife in science: Physical reality is too often confused by the mental constructs we invent for use as our tools.
I contend the belief that the Space-Time Continuum (STC) exists somewhere in the U. is a false premise. I have been writing that a long time, but no one has yet agreed. All who responded to my claim avow it is a real place. Einstein pulled a good one on us by not telling anyone it exists only as a math construction in our minds! Am I the only person in the world who believes that? Again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Matter was initially created soon after the BB when the elements combined. Since then, we say, matter cannot be destroyed, but it can be changed a number of ways. That is why I can agree -masses can survive the change from electrons to positrons. They also serve to explain my ideas about what “dark matter” consists of.
The Standard Model does not claim “space is made of fields….,” from what I’ve read. It says fields exist in space. No one can deny that. The Higgs is another one of those “theories” invented as a last desperate “I give up!” attempt to save the day.
It became important only because no one understood it. How embarrassing to know the greatest scientists fell for it.
]]>